Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying the critical period for waterlogging on yield and its components in wheat and barley

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aims

Crop tolerance to waterlogging depends on factors such as species sensitivity and the stage of development that waterlogging occurs. The aim of this study was to identify the critical period for waterlogging on grain yield and its components, when applied during different stages of crop development in wheat and barley.

Methods

Two experiments were carried out (E1: early sowing date, under greenhouse; E2: late sowing date, under natural conditions). Waterlogging was imposed during 15–20 days in 5 consecutive periods during the crop cycle (from Leaf 1 emergence to maturity).

Results

The greatest yield penalties occurred when waterlogging was applied from Leaf 7 appearance on the main stem to anthesis (from 34 to 92 % of losses in wheat, and from 40 to 79 % in barley for E1 and E2 respectively). Waterlogging during grain filling reduced yield to a lesser degree. In wheat, reductions in grain number were mostly explained by reduced grain number per spike while in barley, by variations in the number of spikes per plant.

Conclusions

The time around anthesis was identified as the most susceptible period to waterlogging in wheat and barley. Exposing the crop to more stressful conditions, e.g. delaying sowing date, magnified the negative responses to waterlogging, although the most sensitive stage (around anthesis) remained unchanged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abeledo LG, Calderini DF, Slafer GA (2003) Genetic improvement of barley yield potential and its physiological determinants in Argentina (1944–1998). Euphytica 130(3):325–334

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alzueta I, Abeledo LG, Mignone CM, Miralles DJ (2012) Differences between wheat and barley in leaf and tillering coordination under contrasting nitrogen and sulfur conditions. Eur J Agron 41(1):92–102. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2012.04.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arisnabarreta S, Miralles DJ (2006) Yield responsiveness in two- and six-rowed barley grown in contrasting nitrogen environments. J Agron Crop Sci 192(3):178–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arisnabarreta S, Miralles DJ (2008) Critical period for grain number establishment of near isogenic lines of two- and six-rowed barley. Field Crop Res 107(3):196–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong W (1980) Aeration in higher plants. In: Woolhouse HW (ed) Advances in botanical research, vol 7. London, pp 225–332

  • Baethgen WE, Christianson CB, Lamothe AG (1995) Nitrogen fertilizer effects on growth, grain yield, and yield components of malting barley. Field Crop Res 43(2–3):87–99. doi:10.1016/0378-4290(95)00034-N

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belford RK (1981) Response of winter wheat to prolonged waterlogging under outdoor conditions. J Agric Sci 97(3):557–568. doi:10.1017/S0021859600036881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham IJ, Blake J, Foulkes MJ, Spink J (2007) Is barley yield in the UK sink limited?: II. Factors affecting potential grain size. Field Crop Res 101(2):212–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blocklehurst PA (1977) Factors controlling grain weight in wheat. Nature 266:348–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calderini DF, Savin R, Abeledo LG, Reynolds MP, Slafer GA (2001) The importance of the period immediately preceding anthesis for grain weight determination in wheat. Euphytica 119(1):199–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannell RQ, Belford RK, Gales K, Dennis CW, Prew RD (1980) Effects of waterlogging at different stages of development on the growth and yield of winter wheat. J Sci Food Agric 31 (2):117–132. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740310203

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannell R, Belford R, Gales K, Thomson R, Webster C (1984) Effects of waterlogging and drought on winter wheat and winter barley grown on a clay and a sandy loam soil. Plant Soil 80(1):53–66. doi:10.1007/bf02232939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collaku A, Harrison SA (2002) Losses in wheat due to waterlogging. Crop Sci 42(2):444–450. doi:10.2135/cropsci2002.4440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cossani CM, Slafer GA, Savin R (2009) Yield and biomass in wheat and barley under a range of conditions in a Mediterranean site. Field Crop Res 112(2–3):205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Rienzo JA, Casanoves F, Balzarini MG, Gonzalez L, Tablada M, Robledo CW (2010) InfoStat Profesional. 2010 edn. Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina

  • Fischer RA (1975) Yield potential of dwarf spring wheat and the effect of shading. Crop Sci 15:607–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer RA (1993) Irrigated spring wheat and timing and amount of nitrogen fertilizer. II. Physiology of grain yield response. Field Crop Res 33(1–2):57–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García del Moral MB, García del Moral LF (1995) Tiller production and survival in relation to grain yield in winter and spring barley. Field Crop Res 44(2–3):85–93. doi:10.1016/0378-4290(95)00072-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García del Moral LF, García B, del Moral M, Molina-Cano JL, Slafer GA (2003) Yield stability and development in two- and six-rowed winter barleys under Mediterranean conditions. Field Crop Res 81(2–3):109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs J, Greenway H (2003) Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. I. Growth, survival and anaerobic catabolism. Funct Plant Biol 30(1):1–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • González FG, Slafer GA, Miralles DJ (2005) Photoperiod during stem elongation in wheat: is its impact on fertile floret and grain number determination similar to that of radiation? Funct Plant Biol 32(3):181–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grassini P, Indaco GV, Pereira ML, Hall AJ, Trápani N (2007) Responses to short-term waterlogging during grain filling in sunflower. Field Crop Res 101(3):352–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay RKM (1995) Harvest index: a review of its use in plant breeding and crop physiology. Ann Appl Biol 126(1):197–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain MA, Araki H, Takahashi T (2011) Poor grain filling induced by waterlogging is similar to that in abnormal early ripening in wheat in Western Japan. Field Crop Res 123(2):100–108. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2011.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang B, Johnson JW (1995) Root respiration and carbohydrate status of two wheat genotypes in response to hypoxia. Ann Bot 75(4):427–432. doi:10.1006/anbo.1995.1041

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang D, Fan X, Dai T, Cao W (2008) Nitrogen fertiliser rate and post-anthesis waterlogging effects on carbohydrate and nitrogen dynamics in wheat. Plant Soil 304(1–2):301–314

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li C, Jiang D, Wollenweber B, Li Y, Dai T, Cao W (2011) Waterlogging pretreatment during vegetative growth improves tolerance to waterlogging after anthesis in wheat. Plant Sci 180(5):672–678. doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2011.01.009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malik AI, Colmer TD, Lambers H, Schortemeyer M (2001) Changes in physiological and morphological traits of roots and shoots of wheat in response to different depths of waterlogging. Aust J Plant Physiol 28(11):1121–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik AI, Colmer TD, Lambers H, Setter TL, Schortemeyer M (2002) Short-term waterlogging has long-term effects on the growth and physiology of wheat. New Phytol 153(2):225–236. doi:10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00318.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midmore PM, Cartwright PM, Fischer RA (1984) Wheat in tropical environments. II. Crop growth and grain yield. Field Crop Res 8:207–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miralles D (2013) Agronomic and varietal characteristics driving the growth of the Argentinian Barley industry. In: The 16th Australian Barley technical symposium: the Australian Barley industry goes global, Australia, p 53

  • Miralles DJ, Slafer GA (2007) Sink limitations to yield in wheat: how could it be reduced? J Agric Sci 145:139–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave ME (1994) Waterlogging effects on yield and photosynthesis in eight winter wheat cultivars. Crop Sci 34(5):1314–1318. doi:10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183X003400050032x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave ME, Ding N (1998) Evaluating wheat cultivars for waterlogging tolerance. Crop Sci 38(1):90–97. doi:10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183X003800010016x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang J, Zhou M, Mendham N, Shabala S (2004) Growth and physiological responses of six barley genotypes to waterlogging and subsequent recovery. Aust J Agric Res 55(8):895–906. doi:10.1071/AR03097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltonen-Sainio P, Kangas A, Salo Y, Jauhiainen L (2007) Grain number dominates grain weight in temperate cereal yield determination: evidence based on 30 years of multi-location trials. Field Crop Res 100(2–3):179–188. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2006.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltonen-Sainio P, Muurinen S, Rajala A, Jauhiainen L (2008) Variation in harvest index of modern spring barley, oat and wheat cultivars adapted to northern growing conditions. J Agric Sci 146:35–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponnamperuma FN (1972) The chemistry of submerged soils. In: Sparks DL (ed) Advances in Agronomy, vol 24. Academic Press, pp 29–96

  • Prystupa P, Savin R, Slafer GA (2004) Grain number and its relationship with dry matter, N and P in the spikes at heading in response to N × P fertilization in barley. Field Crop Res 90(2–3):245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson D, Zhang H, Palta JA, Colmer T, Turner NC (2009) Waterlogging affects the growth, development of tillers, and yield of wheat through a severe, but transient, N deficiency. Crop Pasture Sci 60(6):578–586. doi:10.1071/CP08440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sairam R, Kumutha D, Ezhilmathi K, Deshmukh P, Srivastava G (2008) Physiology and biochemistry of waterlogging tolerance in plants. Biol Plant 52(3):401–412. doi:10.1007/s10535-008-0084-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Samad A, Meisner CA, Saifuzzaman M, Van Ginkel M (2001) Waterlogging tolerance. In: Reynolds MP, Ortiz-Monasterio JI, McNab A (eds) Application of physiology in wheat breeding. CIMMYT, Mexico, pp 135–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR, Appleyard M, Fellowes G, Kirby EJM (1983) Effect of genotype and position in the ear on carpel and grain growth and mature grain weight of spring barley. J Agric Sci 100(2):383–391. doi:10.1017/S0021859600033530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrago RA, Carretero R, Bancal MO, Miralles DJ (2011) Grain weight response to foliar diseases control in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Field Crop Res 120(3):352–359. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2010.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setter TL, Waters I (2003) Review of prospects for germplasm improvement for waterlogging tolerance in wheat, barley and oats. Plant Soil 253(1):1–34. doi:10.1023/a:1024573305997

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Setter TL, Burguess P, Waters I, Kuo J (1999) Genetic diversity of barley and wheat for waterlogging tolerance in Western Australia. In: 9th Australian Barley technical symposium, Melbourne, 1999. Australian Barley Technical Symposium

  • Setter TL, Waters I, Sharma SK, Singh KN, Kulshreshtha N, Yaduvanshi NPS, Ram PC, Singh BN, Rane J, McDonald G, Khabaz-Saberi H, Biddulph TB, Wilson R, Barclay I, McLean R, Cakir M (2009) Review of wheat improvement for waterlogging tolerance in Australia and India: the importance of anaerobiosis and element toxicities associated with different soils. Ann Bot 103(2):221–235. doi:10.1093/aob/mcn137

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slafer GA (2003) Genetic basis of yield as viewed from a crop physiologist’s perspective. Ann Appl Biol 142(2):117–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slafer GA, Andrade FH (1993) Physiological attributes related to the generation of grain yield in bread wheat cultivars released at different eras. Field Crop Res 31(3–4):351–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Striker GG (2012) Flooding stress on plants: anatomical, morphological and physiological responses. In: Mworia JK (ed) Botany. InTech, pp 3–28. doi:10.5772/2245

  • Striker G, Insausti P, Grimoldi A, Ploschuk E, Vasellati V (2005) Physiological and anatomical basis of differential tolerance to soil flooding of Lotus corniculatus L. and Lotus glaber mill. Plant Soil 276(1–2):301–311. doi:10.1007/s11104-005-5084-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ugarte C, Calderini DF, Slafer GA (2007) Grain weight and grain number responsiveness to pre-anthesis temperature in wheat, barley and triticale. Field Crop Res 100(2–3):240–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ginkel M, Sayre K, Boru G (1997) La tolerancia al anegamiento en el trigo: problemas relacionados con el fitomejoramiento. In: Mohan Kohli M, Martino DL (eds) Explorando altos rendimientos en trigo. CIMMYT, INIA, Colonia, pp 193–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollenweber B, Porter JR, Schellberg J (2003) Lack of Interaction between Extreme High-Temperature Events at Vegetative and Reproductive Growth Stages in Wheat. J Agron Crop Sci 189(3):142–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadoks JC, Chang TT, Konzak CF (1974) A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res (Oxf) 14(6):415–421

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge P. J. Lo Valvo, J. M. Brihet and A. V. Seco for their excellent technical assistance. RdSC currently holds a postgraduate scholarship from CONICET. This research was funded by UBACyT and PIP (CONICET) grants.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cátedra de Cerealicultura, Departamento de Producción Vegetal, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Romina P. de San Celedonio, L. Gabriela Abeledo & Daniel J. Miralles

  2. IFEVA, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, CONICET, Av. San Martín 4453, C1417DSE, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Romina P. de San Celedonio & Daniel J. Miralles

  3. CONICET, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    L. Gabriela Abeledo & Daniel J. Miralles

Authors
  1. Romina P. de San Celedonio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Gabriela Abeledo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel J. Miralles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romina P. de San Celedonio.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: John A. Kirkegaard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de San Celedonio, R.P., Abeledo, L.G. & Miralles, D.J. Identifying the critical period for waterlogging on yield and its components in wheat and barley. Plant Soil 378, 265–277 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2028-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2028-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation